• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's Wrong With a Representative Democracy?

X

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here's a bit of dialogue from this thread...

Xerographica: So you agree that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, individual, hard-earned taxes to?
haymarket: So you are against our system of a representative democracy under a Constitution?

...figured I'd just start a new thread to answer the question. My answer to the question is...yes, I am against our system of a representative democracy under a Constitution. Here's why...

Everything depends on sacrifice. A sacrifice is where you give up one thing that you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more. What do you have to sacrifice if you want a laptop...or a car...or an education...or a home...or a family?

Economics is the study of sacrifice/scarcity...and it's centered around one question..."Is it worth it?". Is it worth it for you to reply to this thread? Most of you will decide that it is not worth it...but perhaps a few of you will decide that it is worth it. The important thing to understand is that nobody can make that decision for you. Only you can know whether something is worth your sacrifice.

1. Check out how many people thought it was worth it to respond to this thread. What's the point of having representatives if only one person thought it was worth it to defend the trustworthiness of only one congressperson? There's absolutely nothing wrong with having personal shoppers for public goods...as long as taxpayers have the freedom to skip the middleman and use their taxes to directly "purchase" the public goods that they value. Pragmatarianism says that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations are worthy of their sacrifices.

2. People should have the freedom to sell their votes. In other words...you should have the freedom to sacrifice one thing that you value (your vote on a specific issue) in exchange for another thing that you value even more (money). You should have the freedom to decide whether it's worth it to sell your vote.

3. Children should be allowed to vote (children's suffrage). The only restrictions on voting should be 1. you must be a resident and 2. you cannot be accompanied inside a voting booth. Parents should have the freedom to decide whether it's worth it to help their kids learn how to vote.

4. Campaign contributions should not be limited. People should have the freedom to sacrifice one thing that they value (their money) in exchange for something that they value even more (the possibility of having their interests protected).

Is it fair that rich people have more money? If you don't think it's fair that rich people have so much money...then don't worship them with your countless sacrifices. How do you stop worshiping Bill Gates? You stop buying laptops with Windows operating systems. How do you stop worshiping Jeff Bezos? You stop buying products on Amazon. How do you stop worshiping Brittney Spears? You stop buying her songs on iTunes. How do you stop worshiping the spirit of Steve Jobs? You stop buying Ipods and Ipads. How do you stop worshiping the spirit of Henry Ford? You stop buying Ford vehicles.

If you don't want rich people to have so much money then stop worshiping talent, creativity, intelligence, innovation, productivity, luck, fearlessness, skill, insight, foresight, tenacity, dedication, focus, forbearance and hard work. In other words...stop worshiping everything that makes America great.

Rich people only have so much money to spend because you believed that what they offered you was worth the sacrifice. Congress, on the other hand, did not earn all the money that it has to spend. It did not earn 150 million people's sacrifices.

The fact of the matter is that congress is socialism. I don't believe in socialism. I don't believe that any committee or individual automatically deserves my worship without first having earned it. To say that congress does not have to earn my worship is the same thing as arguing for blind faith in God or Santa Claus or Chairman Mao. There's nothing wrong with having faith...as long as you do not impose your beliefs on others.

Therefore, in the spirit of religious tolerance...people who do not believe in the divinity of congress should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they make their sacrifices to.

"On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others." - Milton Friedman

"Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority." - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law


"So we would be right to say the seers and prophets just mentioned are 'divine' and 'inspired' - likewise, everyone with a knack for poetry. Likewise, politicians and public figures are nothing less than divine and possessed when - under god's inspiration and influence - they give speeches that lead to success in important matters, even though they have no idea what they are talking about." - Socrates, Reason and Persuasion, Three Dialogues by Plato
 
To answer your question is that not all parties and individuals are represented.....
 
Under your system, large corporations will simply outlaw their competition with their unlimited political influence, thereby killing the free market. Their will be no innovation, as any new company will simply be crushed by the political power of entrenched players the moment they become a threat.

Why do you hate the free market Xenographica? Are you a secret commie trying to undermine the capitalist system from within? You pay lip service to capitalism, but you undermine the government and the American way of life at every turn. I'll bet you will go after apple pie next.
 
rathi said:
Under your system, large corporations will simply outlaw their competition with their unlimited political influence, thereby killing the free market. Their will be no innovation, as any new company will simply be crushed by the political power of entrenched players the moment they become a threat.
Click to expand...

Right now we have 538 people spending 150 million people's taxes and you think giving 150 million people the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to will somehow block innovation? Are you kidding me? It would be exactly the other way around. Allowing 538 congresspeople to control 150 million people's taxes would be the surefire way to destroy innovation. Imagine if you allowed 538 people to spend all our money in the private sector. Do you think that would help or hinder innovation?

The creative class now includes some 38.3 million Americans, roughly 30 percent of the entire U.S. workforce---up from just 10 percent at the turn of the 20th century and less than 20 percent as recently as 1980. The creative class has considerable economic power. In 1999, the average salary for a member of the creative class was nearly $50,000 ($48,752), compared to roughly $28,000 for a working-class member and $22,000 for a service-class worker. - Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class
Click to expand...

rathi said:
Why do you hate the free market Xenographica? Are you a secret commie trying to undermine the capitalist system from within? You pay lip service to capitalism, but you undermine the government and the American way of life at every turn. I'll bet you will go after apple pie next.
Click to expand...

How could I hate the free-market when I'm advocating that we allow free-market principles (choice) to determine the distribution of public funds? How could I hate the free-market when I'm advocating that your perspective should matter in the public sector? No no no...I LOVE apple pie.
 
The free market is based on the concept of competition. Your system would let entrenched businesses buy the government and then use the government to destroy competition. It isn't possible to have a competition when one side can re-write the rules in their favor. Your "free market principles" are irrelevant, the consequences of your plan would destroy the free market as it actually exists.
 
rathi said:
The free market is based on the concept of competition. Your system would let entrenched businesses buy the government and then use the government to destroy competition. It isn't possible to have a competition when one side can re-write the rules in their favor. Your "free market principles" are irrelevant, the consequences of your plan would destroy the free market as it actually exists.
Click to expand...

The government supplies public goods. As far as I know...destroying competition is not a public good. So if a CEO wanted to destroy his competition...which government organization would he have to give his taxes to?
 
Xerographica said:
The government supplies public goods. As far as I know...destroying competition is not a public good. So if a CEO wanted to destroy his competition...which government organization would he have to give his taxes to?
Click to expand...

He wouldn't give his taxes to anyone, he would figuratively buy votes with unlimited campaign contributions and then literally buy votes under your plan. He could then successfully lobby for whatever laws he needs to squish his competition.
 
rathi said:
He wouldn't give his taxes to anyone, he would figuratively buy votes with unlimited campaign contributions and then literally buy votes under your plan. He could then successfully lobby for whatever laws he needs to squish his competition.
Click to expand...
You have to work with me here. I tried to come up with a decent example but it sounded so ridiculous that it would have been pretty much a strawman argument. Can you provide a realistic example to help me understand your concern?
 
Xerographica said:
You have to work with me here. I tried to come up with a decent example but it sounded so ridiculous that it would have been pretty much a strawman argument. Can you provide a realistic example to help me understand your concern?
Click to expand...

Lets suppose our company builds light aircraft, say Cessna. Cessna designs a GPS/radio beacon that is activated when the aircraft crashes and gets a patent on it. Cessna proceeds to buy votes to get friendly politicians into office who have sway with the FAA. The FAA then issues ruling that for "safety" reasons all new aircraft must have a beacon. Since Cessna holds the patent, they are now the only company who can sell light aircraft. Cessna demands outrageous sums of money in licensing fees which their competitors can't afford until they go out business.

A perfect example of people "spending money to protect their interests", namely by squashing everyone else.
 
rathi said:
Lets suppose our company builds light aircraft, say Cessna. Cessna designs a GPS/radio beacon that is activated when the aircraft crashes and gets a patent on it. Cessna proceeds to buy votes to get friendly politicians into office who have sway with the FAA. The FAA then issues ruling that for "safety" reasons all new aircraft must have a beacon. Since Cessna holds the patent, they are now the only company who can sell light aircraft. Cessna demands outrageous sums of money in licensing fees which their competitors can't afford until they go out business.

A perfect example of people "spending money to protect their interests", namely by squashing everyone else.
Click to expand...

How much money would Cessna have to spend in order to get enough friendly politicians into office? Wouldn't every single other company also be trying to buy votes to get "friendly" politicians into office? Who doesn't want a "friendly" politician in office? What's the FAA's motivation to be swayed by politicians? In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would hold the purse strings. Well...unless they all decided that they wanted congress to be their personal shoppers for public goods. So why wouldn't Cessna, rather than spending all that money on trying to buy votes...which would only be a drop in the bucket relative to bigger company's efforts to buy votes....instead just give all that money directly to the FAA by way of taxes? In other words...why wouldn't Cessna just try and directly sway the FAA with funding?

So if you're saying that 538 congresspeople will have enough money to sway the FAA...then you're merely critiquing our current system. If you're saying that congress will not have enough money to sway the FAA...then you're saying that the FAA will be swayed by its biggest "donors"...aka taxpayers such as Cessna, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell and so on. Which one is it?
 
Cessna's competition are start-up companies trying to introduce cutting edge new airplanes. They have to spend all their capital on designing and building the actual aircraft, they don't have the resources to buy politicians. Cessna is the entrenched player in the light aircraft market and has the resources to successfully out-lobby their competition.

Your whole system fails, because corporations can get a better return on their investment by influencing the government than actually engaging on commerce. It would become impossible for new companies to ever unseat the major players when the law itself it stacked against them. Without competition, the free market doesn't exist and prices will go while quality goes down and the country as a whole loses.
 
Deuce said:
Here's a tip:

There's no such thing as this unit of "value" you invented.

Here's another tip:

All of us understand the concept of opportunity cost. You, on the other hand, do not, because you apply the concept to situations that do not warrant it.
Click to expand...

I invented the concept of "utility"? That must explain why all the economics use it all the time.

You understand the opportunity cost concept? So explain how it ensures the efficient allocation of limited resources.
 
What's Wrong With a Representative Democracy?
Click to expand...

I'd rather have direct democracy.
Representative democracy gives you only the illusion of democracy which it, in fact, isn't.
 
Canell said:
I'd rather have direct democracy.
Representative democracy gives you only the illusion of democracy which it, in fact, isn't.
Click to expand...

You need to read what the founders wrote about direct democracy, it might do you some good.
 
rathi said:
Cessna's competition are start-up companies trying to introduce cutting edge new airplanes. They have to spend all their capital on designing and building the actual aircraft, they don't have the resources to buy politicians. Cessna is the entrenched player in the light aircraft market and has the resources to successfully out-lobby their competition.

Your whole system fails, because corporations can get a better return on their investment by influencing the government than actually engaging on commerce. It would become impossible for new companies to ever unseat the major players when the law itself it stacked against them. Without competition, the free market doesn't exist and prices will go while quality goes down and the country as a whole loses.
Click to expand...

How strange...you somehow missed my question. Here it is again...

A. If you're saying that 538 congresspeople will have enough money to sway the FAA...then you're merely critiquing our current system.

B. If you're saying that congress will not have enough money to sway the FAA...then you're saying that the FAA will be swayed by its biggest "donors"...aka taxpayers such as Cessna, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell and so on.

So which one is it? Is it A or B?
 
Xerographica said:
Here's a bit of dialogue from this thread...

Xerographica: So you agree that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, individual, hard-earned taxes to?
haymarket: So you are against our system of a representative democracy under a Constitution?

...figured I'd just start a new thread to answer the question. My answer to the question is...yes, I am against our system of a representative democracy under a Constitution. Here's why...

Everything depends on sacrifice. A sacrifice is where you give up one thing that you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more. What do you have to sacrifice if you want a laptop...or a car...or an education...or a home...or a family?

Economics is the study of sacrifice/scarcity...and it's centered around one question..."Is it worth it?". Is it worth it for you to reply to this thread? Most of you will decide that it is not worth it...but perhaps a few of you will decide that it is worth it. The important thing to understand is that nobody can make that decision for you. Only you can know whether something is worth your sacrifice.

1. Check out how many people thought it was worth it to respond to this thread. What's the point of having representatives if only one person thought it was worth it to defend the trustworthiness of only one congressperson? There's absolutely nothing wrong with having personal shoppers for public goods...as long as taxpayers have the freedom to skip the middleman and use their taxes to directly "purchase" the public goods that they value. Pragmatarianism says that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations are worthy of their sacrifices.

2. People should have the freedom to sell their votes. In other words...you should have the freedom to sacrifice one thing that you value (your vote on a specific issue) in exchange for another thing that you value even more (money). You should have the freedom to decide whether it's worth it to sell your vote.

3. Children should be allowed to vote (children's suffrage). The only restrictions on voting should be 1. you must be a resident and 2. you cannot be accompanied inside a voting booth. Parents should have the freedom to decide whether it's worth it to help their kids learn how to vote.

4. Campaign contributions should not be limited. People should have the freedom to sacrifice one thing that they value (their money) in exchange for something that they value even more (the possibility of having their interests protected).

Is it fair that rich people have more money? If you don't think it's fair that rich people have so much money...then don't worship them with your countless sacrifices. How do you stop worshiping Bill Gates? You stop buying laptops with Windows operating systems. How do you stop worshiping Jeff Bezos? You stop buying products on Amazon. How do you stop worshiping Brittney Spears? You stop buying her songs on iTunes. How do you stop worshiping the spirit of Steve Jobs? You stop buying Ipods and Ipads. How do you stop worshiping the spirit of Henry Ford? You stop buying Ford vehicles.

If you don't want rich people to have so much money then stop worshiping talent, creativity, intelligence, innovation, productivity, luck, fearlessness, skill, insight, foresight, tenacity, dedication, focus, forbearance and hard work. In other words...stop worshiping everything that makes America great.

Rich people only have so much money to spend because you believed that what they offered you was worth the sacrifice. Congress, on the other hand, did not earn all the money that it has to spend. It did not earn 150 million people's sacrifices.

The fact of the matter is that congress is socialism. I don't believe in socialism. I don't believe that any committee or individual automatically deserves my worship without first having earned it. To say that congress does not have to earn my worship is the same thing as arguing for blind faith in God or Santa Claus or Chairman Mao. There's nothing wrong with having faith...as long as you do not impose your beliefs on others.

Therefore, in the spirit of religious tolerance...people who do not believe in the divinity of congress should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they make their sacrifices to.

"On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others." - Milton Friedman

"Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority." - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law


"So we would be right to say the seers and prophets just mentioned are 'divine' and 'inspired' - likewise, everyone with a knack for poetry. Likewise, politicians and public figures are nothing less than divine and possessed when - under god's inspiration and influence - they give speeches that lead to success in important matters, even though they have no idea what they are talking about." - Socrates, Reason and Persuasion, Three Dialogues by Plato
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with a representative democracy as long as the process of governance keeps it truly representative and there's a process of direct democracy to act as a check against the representatives who normally make policy.
 
American said:
You need to read what the founders wrote about direct democracy, it might do you some good.
Click to expand...

Ok, I might do that. Anyway, I'm a fan of the Plato's state of 10 000 - 15 000 citizens. In other words, the state must have the size of a small town. I don't buy into this multimillion people state ideas, where a bunch of people decide the faith of all others.

:)
 
samsmart said:
Nothing is wrong with a representative democracy as long as the process of governance keeps it truly representative and there's a process of direct democracy to act as a check against the representatives who normally make policy.
Click to expand...

Do you have a personal shopper in the private sector?
 
As long as individuals and business entities aren't able to vote themselves money via tax revenues, there's nothing wrong with representative democracy, as the democratic process would be more centered around what's best for the country as a whole, and not just what's best for some segments of society. Once it gets to where we now stand, we will continue to become monetarily impoverished overall, and at some point, we will have a serious economic downfall, which cannot be "fixed" by government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom